IMPORTANT - Pending League Rule Change

Hello Gentlemen,
Please note that the exact details of the rule change are not
finalized and that the following is a summary of the direction we
are heading. The final details will be posted in the near future.

What is changing:
1. Minimum average team OV rating (20 starters)
2. Revision to the draft lottery
3. Draft position penalties for not meeting the minimum avg OV rating

Why is this changing:
A disturbing trend has emerged over the past two seasons that has
reached the point where 6 teams have incomplete/uncompetive pro
rosters that could not be competitive in an AHL league never mind
the HFNHL. Inversely with 6 teams fielding minor leaguers the top
teams have been able to assemble All-Star rosters. Frankly the middle
of the pack teams have higher talent levels than is reasonable as 30
teams worth of NHL talent are held by 24 HFNHL teams. This could not
be allowed to continue and as a result drastic measures are required
to save the league from itself.

The minimums currently being proposed are a team average 66OV (for
the 20 starters) by the All-Star break and 68 by the start of the
2004/05 season. Teams failing to meet these minimums will have their
draft position reduced by an undefined number of positions.
As draft position appears to be the motive for many of these GM's a
review of the lottery is being conducted to reduce this incentive.
Once the league is restabilised the Admin Team may chose to revert to
the NHL draft lottery system.

We recognise that one team is caught in this due to the financial
delema he inherited but that GM appears to have been acting in the best interest of his team and has done his best to maintain some valid NHL talent despite his circumstances.

I have been part of this league since the first face off back in 1998(cant believe it has gone five years now) and you all know that Tampa has been up and down. I have made it to the playoffs a couple of times. As you all know I was a high spender last year and I have lost track of how many millions I lost. Therefore I tried something else this season.

I guess I will be one of the teams that might have under 66 in average but should I really be punished for that? Is it fair to suggest a rule change TWO days before the pre season starts? If this was announced a couple of months/weeks ago I could have got additional players in free agency or waivers(I did send in the waiverlist before the deadline but it seems no one read it in time).

I guess you can see me as the Pittsburgh Penguins of the HFNHL. Trading alot of highpayed players for young prospects. Has anyone in the NHL complained about Pittsburgh? Minnesota Wild had one of the lowes payrolls last year in the NHL but did that stop them?

ALL of my trades has also been approved which means that the league actually has allowed me to do trades and now I should be punished?

I can understand a rule before the 04/05 season but I dont think its fair to suggest a rule change TWO days before the pre season starts.

It is my understanding that your trades were questioned. Should some of them been overturned? Possibly.
I don't disagree that this should have happened sooner, in fact this did come up last season but at the time it was hoped that this was a short term event that would not last. We were wrong. Recent moves, yours included, have forced us to act immediately with little notice and I will not deny that I was a main advocate.
The simple fact is that there is at least one other team starting down the same path and if we did not act immediately the problem would grow. The impact is not immediate as there is plenty of time until the all-star break to make the necessary adjustments with many of the teams in question only requiring a few minor tweaks to reach the 66OV target.
In regards to the Pittsburg Penguins they still have Mario Lemieux, Martin Straka, and other legitimate players. HFNHL Tampa has gone from a 73OV at the end of last season to 62.5 over the summer. The only legitimate players on the team are Sedin and Calder, nice young players but not exactly stars. In addition with a bank account of $17M, although lower than average, this does not qualify as a desperate financial situation.
Do not assume that you are the only team for which this rule was brought into place.

I can understand a rule before the 04/05 season but I dont think its fair to suggest a rule change TWO days before the pre season starts.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I figured out my Overall average and it's 64 right now, which would put me under the limit.

Here's my beef though. I acquired this team, joined the HFNHL before the Entry Draft. And I acquired a Florida Panthers team that was in serious trouble. It had already begun a major youth movement, but without the youth part. Basically it was a team of very very crappy players who didnt have much future in the NHL, not to mention a team with not many excellent prospects. Shawn McEachern was essentially the only good player (over 70) I had. And yes I traded him, because it didn't make sense for me to keep a guy who made 2.5 million a year and whom didn't fit in with the team at all. I have made this Florida franchise into a team that in a few years could be a team that could challenge for the playoffs (with some added free agents when the time should come).

But basically what you are saying is that it isn't ok to go along with this rebuilding mode that i was dealt with. If i go now and pick up a few good players whom are in the 70's in terms of ratings and would push me above the 66 average, it wouldn't make much sense now would it? Even with those players, I'm not nearly good enough to make the playoffs at the moment. And the team as it is, is not generating enough revenue to be able to afford these guys I'd have to acquire (probably over 2 million dollar players, basically) So I'd then go into debt and the team would be right back to where it was when i took over, in trouble. Not to mention that in order to acquire these players, I'd have to give up my better prospects, the guys whom I'm counting on to be my players of the future and again I'm right back at square one, without any solid prospects and a sh** team.

Quite frankly I think this is horse**** and that it is completely unfair. I've been acquiring good talent for my hockey club, but it has been talent that can play now (guys with not that high ratings) but that will get better in the future. It's not like I went and stripped my hockey club bare, I've actually been adding on some salary, but I have been doing it wisely and at the right cost to the point where it doesn't hurt me now, but makes me better for now and the future.

First off let me say that I know you feel victimized hiowever the good of the league exceeds the good of one or two teams.
I have had some GM's in the past ask me how we were allowing this sort of thing to happen and they felt the league was being penalized. I'm sure they will chime in on this conversation at some point.

You have done an admirable job and have a good eye for prospects but this is not a case where the end justifies the means.

We cannopt allow moving every NHL player to aquire prospects and picks it's plain unhealthy, especially when they are cheap respectable players that are being moved for mid to late round picks. Whereas moving the McEachern's of the world made some sense but some others were just dumps. Correct me if I'm wrong but was not Gomez your player? He's the type of guy that even most rebuilding teams would keep in their core.

I know you are relatively new to the league but as some vets recall this league was nearly detroyed in it's very first season and since then the league admin has retained the right to intervene to protect the health of the league. Buffalo was one of those teams that got dismanteled in the the first season and only now, 5 seasons later, is recovering. In the last season or two we have gotten a little loose again on enforcing some of the rules that were there to protect the league and so some teams are in bad shape but before it goes any farther we have to intervene.

I am in my 4th season with the league and invested more than enough of my time in seeing it prosper. I will do all I can to protect it.

Ok, first off, let me state that I agree this is the type of rule that makes sense, but there needs to be more notice given. IF this rule had been proposed in June or something, fine, I can understand that, give me the summer to stock my team up for the season to be reasonably competitive, but at this point, I"m going to have to overpay for guys in that 66-70 zone because I have no leverage. I would have picked up Jon Klemm for example, in the waiver draft, despite his 3.8 million dollar salary, if I knew of this rule change.

I can understand where things are coming from. I also know that my teamis probably one of the ones that caused this rule to be thought up. But like Brock, I have to plead my defence. I took on the Canucks when they were old, overpaid, underachieving and declining. The payroll was around 50-60 million if I remember correctly, and guys like MacInnis, Palffy, Bure, Robitaille and so on and so forth, were on my roster. But these are players who's value (save Palffy) was only declining, and my best prospect was Kyle Freadrich. KYLE FREADRICH!!! Sure, I made a couple early moves that might not have fantastic, but I still acquired some very good prospects. I dealt Kimmo Timonen for Nick Boynton, hardly the type of trade you make if you just want to get the first overall pick. I wasn't dropping players for nothing in an effort to cave.

Furthermore, I held on to Sean Burke until the deadline last year becasue the right deal did not come along. I could have easily dealt him for a lesser deal last year and increased my chances of getting a top pick, but I didn't. I held out, and got Alex Polushin and more for him. Same thing with Ron Francis, who I dealt this past summer for a second round pick. Francis was one of the most impressive players in the league, leading my team to victories that I had no business being in. Again, could have dumped him to tank the season, but I didn't. I still have Joe Niewendyk, because the right deal has not come along.

I won the draft loterry, something that was a complete surprise, and instead of getting the 7th overall pick, I got the third overall pick, and got Eric Staal. Now, that's just good luck, hardly a product of tanking the season. The only major trade (save the Francis deal) I made this summer was dealing Nick Boynton for Maxime Oullet. Now, you can interpret this as tanking it, but really, it was done by design. Oullett (how do you spell his last name anyways?) is a guy who could be a JS Giguere clone in the future, and unlike Ilya Bryzgalov, my other top goalie prospect, he does not have an obstructed path to NHL stardom. Bryzgalov, while fantastically talented (possibly as much so as Oullett) is stuck behind the aforementioned Giguere. Robert Esche is my #1 goalie now, and won't be dealt this season unless I see a good offer, but he's not a franchise goalie. Oullett could be that franchise goalie, which is why I made that deal.

The other thing I'll say is that players don't break-out in the HFNHL. For example, with the NHL Penguins, Rico Fata has broken out with increased ice time. Yet, while a guy like Dan Corso could do what Fata is doign if given the same ice time on a bad team (say like Vancouver in the HFNHL), he is not. Players can't improve based on the HFNHL, opportunities aren't given. Maybe I'm not explaining this well, but that's why some poor NHL teams can look better than they are, because they give guys who need a chance, that chance, and they can blossom during the season. That can't happen in sim leagues.

Finally, I think it's not a bad idea. I see where you are coming from, although I think you are generalizing the situation a bit too much. I know I'm not simply tanking the season to get Ovechkin for example. Otherwise, I would have tanked it for a shot at one of the top 4 guys last year (which I got, only because of the loterry). There's a difference between stripping your team and re-building your team completely. I came into this league with a roster that had prior success, but was declining amazingly and had financial issues. I had no young players save Robert Esche, absolutely none, and the year I came in, I didn't get a single draft pick. The idea is not bad, but install it for 2004-05 or something. Don't basically tell me and other GMs on poor teams, we have to pay for average NHLers so we aren't penalized. Essentially, you are creating a market where I will have to overpay or else I will pay in the form of draft pick reduction.

We cannopt allow moving every NHL player to aquire prospects and picks it's plain unhealthy, especially when they are cheap respectable players that are being moved for mid to late round picks. Whereas moving the McEachern's of the world made some sense but some others were just dumps. Correct me if I'm wrong but was not Gomez your player? He's the type of guy that even most rebuilding teams would keep in their core.

Click to expand...

Uh huh.......right.....

Scott Gomez? Nope, never had him and if I did, it was the past GM Samuel Lay that moved him not me.

Which of my moves were just plain dumps? I didn't have any top quality NHL players to begin with? I've got good young players whom won't see a nice increase in ranking until next season. I've gone out and used prospects to acquire players whom can help me now and for the future and I've been active in trade talks that would benefit my team for the now and for the future.

This is still such complete and utter diahhorea. You are essentially telling me to ruin my team? If thats the case, mise well get a new GM because I'd have done no better job than Samuel Ley did in wrecking it. Acquiring some overpriced talent will not bring my close to the playoffs, I'd have to overpay to get it because the league knows the position I'm in, my prospect pool would have to be depleted and my finances wouldn't allow me to fully support it.

So essentially, to benefit the league, you've got to ruin my team that I believe I've done a very good job at building up so far?

Finally, I think it's not a bad idea. I see where you are coming from, although I think you are generalizing the situation a bit too much. I know I'm not simply tanking the season to get Ovechkin for example. Otherwise, I would have tanked it for a shot at one of the top 4 guys last year (which I got, only because of the loterry). There's a difference between stripping your team and re-building your team completely. I came into this league with a roster that had prior success, but was declining amazingly and had financial issues. I had no young players save Robert Esche, absolutely none, and the year I came in, I didn't get a single draft pick. The idea is not bad, but install it for 2004-05 or something. Don't basically tell me and other GMs on poor teams, we have to pay for average NHLers so we aren't penalized. Essentially, you are creating a market where I will have to overpay or else I will pay in the form of draft pick reduction.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. Sean is much more level headed than I am, so he put it much better.

I am in my 4th season with the league and invested more than enough of my time in seeing it prosper. I will do all I can to protect it.

Click to expand...

See, I agree with your intent. I think you mean well, and I agree that random dumping of everything for the simple purpose of tanking it, is silly. But wouldn't it make more sense to simply restrict teams from simple salary dumps the way the NHL's Pittsburgh Penguins have done? I mean, the admin team (including yourself obviously) is unbelievable, I have the utmost respect for you guys, you work incredibly hard, but wouldn't closer scrutinizing of these types of deals work more effectively. Be proactive about the issue, instead of reactive.

It is my understanding that your trades were questioned. Should some of them been overturned? Possibly.

Click to expand...

Still all my trades that I have made has been approved. I only regret one trade in the last few seasons.

1) Trading Bryan McCabe(dont remember for what) but I agree that was a stupid move.

So my only option would now be to go out and overpay on the free agents that are still on the market? Maybe I should offer Nabokov, Stillman, Friesen, Nylander and those guys 8+M$ so I am sure I get them and my ratings would improve? Would you prefer that? A Tampa Bay without money next spring?

The difference is when 'rebuilding' is done with a one year turn around vision and is done almost exclusively for picks and prospects that equals stripping.
I started in the league in the exact same situtation as Sean just described. I had an overblown budget on a bunch of aging stars that only made up two lines, no team depth, and no prospects. Difference is I rebuilt without ever missing the playoff's and I did that by trading for packages of mid level NHL'ers plus prospects/picks and did the transition over a 2 1/2 year process.
Douglas also took over Columbus, in an equally bad position as you inherited Brock. In fact it was so bad that no one would take the team so Douglas left his Washington team to rebuild Columbus. Whereas he prolly started with a team of a 60 something OV level it was much more respectable by the end of the season possibly even a 65-66OV level and he did not have to sacrifice his future to do it. Actually he started with no future to sacrifice
My point is that there are other ways of doing it. Not as instantly rewarding mind you, but do-able and in a way that does not negtively impact the league.

Martin you know you don't have to overpay. As you will recall I made you a trade offer a week ago with a bunch of guys of varying conmtracts and skill levels that would help your team and at fair asking prices.
The truth is that there are alot of teams sitting on surplus players and there are a couple of NHL'ers currently unsigned. Most of the teams impacted have a couple of prospects that would improve the situtation.
With the exception of Tampa and Florida, the other teams only need to make one or two modest transactions to meet the all-star target which is 3-4 mnths away yet. Heck there are always a few players that hit waivers with useable ratings during the season as well.

The difference is when 'rebuilding' is done with a one year turn around vision and is done almost exclusively for picks and prospects that equals stripping.
I started in the league in the exact same situtation as Sean just described. I had an overblown budget on a bunch of aging stars that only made up two lines, no team depth, and no prospects. Difference is I rebuilt without ever missing the playoff's and I did that by trading for packages of mid level NHL'ers plus prospects/picks and did the transition over a 2 1/2 year process.
Douglas also took over Columbus, in an equally bad position as you inherited Brock. In fact it was so bad that no one would take the team so Douglas left his Washington team to rebuild Columbus. Whereas he prolly started with a team of a 60 something OV level it was much more respectable by the end of the season possibly even a 65-66OV level and he did not have to sacrifice his future to do it. Actually he started with no future to sacrifice
My point is that there are other ways of doing it. Not as instantly rewarding mind you, but do-able and in a way that does not negtively impact the league.

Click to expand...

The thing is, there are different ways as you pointed out, but you shouldn't punish different ways. Essentially, I took the root an expansion team essentially. I wanted to start over. There was nothing to build around in Vancouver, but I'm building my team with patience. Maybe it's because I grew up watching the NHL's Ottawa Senators and they built a great team by patience and player development, but I mean, I'm heading in the right direction. I just don't like the idea of penalizing a team for doing things differently.

First off, this issue has been a long time in coming. I know because in my duties as DoPP I've pushed back on a get number of moves made by teams going through what should be a rebuilding process, where teams have frittered away established assets for very little return. Individually tose deals have been at least defensible, which is why in the end they were passed. But collectively they have amounted to gutting teams of assets and leaving little behind to work with.

It's exactly the process that left me in charge of Columbus after only one season in the league. It's what prompted the removal of Sam Ley in favour of Brock.

Sean's point is valid - in the NHL, teams who are rebuilding are afforded the luxury of having their young players develop and improve with increased icetime. In the HFNHL there is no such mechanism.

More importantly, in the NHL teams have owners who are expecting revenues, and who simply won't tolerate the destruction of a team's assets unless there are (as in the case of Pittsburgh) overwhelming financial considerations in play. If a GM in the NHL whose teams was not on the verge of financial collapse behaved this way, he'd be fired. There are no owners in the HFNHL, only an admin team trying to head off a growing problem.

We've been trying to address this through trade monitoring, but that hasn't been effective for the reasons explained. We've been trying to identify possible solutions for the better part of a year, and have considered everything from turfing out GMs (which we have had to do in a couple of instances) to contraction. These proposals are the best w've been able to come up with. If anyone can suggest an alternative, trust me, we're all ears. But letting teams decimate their playing rosters and futures on nothing but speculative moves is not a solution - it's a recipe for more abandoned teams that no one wants.

As to the timing of the decision, I will be the first to acknowledge that we would prefer to have come to these decisions (which, for the record, aren't decisions just yet - as Drew indicated, the exact mechanisms are still being debated) sooner. That is why we are proposing a phased implementation that sees teams working towards what we feel are achieveable targets that should if properly managed do nothing to impede a team's ability to rebuild.

In a way, it's funny. NHL fans have often criticized teams (such as the Rangers) who have steadfastly refused to address long-term needs, focusing instead exclusively on short-term fixes. In the HFNHL, we appear to ahve the inverse problem (as perhaps should be expected in a league sponsored by a prospects site!): we have GMs who make moves for the long term, but who abandon any semblance of an attempt to maintain a respectable team in the process (which would almost certainly be a requirement imposed by any owner).

That's what this comes down to. Brock - I understand your points. I do. And this is not a with-hunt. But you asked why you should have to add players to your team for the short-term when your rebuilding plans are long-term? It is for exactly this reason: you would be required by your owner and fans in order for your team to maintain some semblance of credibility at least in your local marketplace, if not in the league as a whole.

When the season hasn't even started and we have multiple teams challenging each other - in jest, but grounded in seriousness - to see who can get the first overall pick not only this season, but next season, I think we have a real problem.

But we are not talking about just a few teams, here - we're talking about the good of the league, and as such I think the other GMs in the league have some responsibility to help teams caught by this challenge out of their predicaments. With that in mind, I will make the following offer, and I challenge all GMs with sufficient average player OV and depth to do something similar:

I will put D Jamie Pushor to waivers, even though I'd prefer to keep him as my seventh defenceman. Before everyone scoffs, Pushor is a 70-OV player in his late 20's who has good IT, SK (for a stay-at-home defenceman, anyway) ST and DF, and only makes $800,000 per year.

Hopefully other teams will see their way clear to make other reasonably-priced depth players available to help teams meet the proposed targets.

As I said this subject is sill open for discussion. For example, I feel that there's no need to alter the draft or lottery in any way, if we simply apply the minimum average OV rule. But those are my thoughts. I expect everyone out there has some they would like to express as well. I look forward to hearing them.

My personal views is that GM's should be allowed to run their teams as they see fit under the watchfull eye of the admin team who's mandate should be to keep the integrity of the league at a high level.

Let's face it, a lot of us "vets" have benefited from lopsided trades (especially in the past), including some members of the admin team. Take a look at a couple of the top teams and tell me they were not developed by lopsided trades. There were not all built on great talent evaluation by the GM's.

I think the current admin team is doing a great job and that if any more of the past dealings occur they will put a stop to it (although a few trades accepted this year are questionable) whether that be trades, waivers, etc...

PS I'm totally pumped to get the season underway....thanks for all of the guys who are making it happen....

A couple of comments:
More importantly, in the NHL teams have owners who are expecting revenues, and who simply won't tolerate the destruction of a team's assets unless there are (as in the case of Pittsburgh) overwhelming financial considerations in play. If a GM in the NHL whose teams was not on the verge of financial collapse behaved this way, he'd be fired. There are no owners in the HFNHL, only an admin team trying to head off a growing problem.

Click to expand...

This is the main point GM's need to understand - several GMs would be fired for dismantling the team to the point they are no longer competitive. I understand that several GM's have inherited situations they felt necessary to tear completely down to work from the ground up, but we're working on making this league as realistic as possible, and this new rule will help keep "a competitive" check in place, without relying on the Admin Team to make judgement calls that in the end will simply be deemed subjective.

This new rule is a complete no-brainer, even if the particulars may be tinkered with over time.

The real question that remains is how we faze this in?

The point of all of a sudden having several teams fighting over mid-ranked players - thereby creating a rush and increase in asking price for these guys - is well taken, and it is not the intent of the Admin team to force teams into "bad trades", other than to apply the necessary pressure the owner and market would demand of the GM to provide a competitive team. As Doug has pointed out, we're still trying to create a fair, but firm, timeline to get teams on board.

Obviously this would have been better had we timed the announcement of this rule in advance of the waiver draft. However, GM's need to understand the Waiver draft was the Admin teams' final straw. We were hoping several teams would take advantage of the players available to them to improve their team, and redistribute some of the talent - which is the whole intent of the wiaver draft. In stead, we saw the collective yawn by several GMs who had the prime opportunity to improve their on-ice product, and the vast majority simply passed with the dreams of Ovechkin dancing in their minds (even though last still leads to less than a 50% chance of getting him).

Enough is enough.

I'm all for taking a closer look at the ramifications of the 66OV requirement by the allstar break, but GMs should consider this discussion the proverbial firing across their bow. You've been put on notice by your owner and your fans to ice a credible team, and pronto. So now begins your challenge of keeping your job, while maintaining your prime assets (no one's suggesting you move your prime picks).

In the interim, the Admin team will take a closer look at the ramifications of the 66OV, which is still several months away from now.

Time to tinker with your blueprint to building a winner gentleman - your owner and fans have demanded it, with your head being the price should you fail to deliver.

I just don't think some you realize the situation that some of us are in (in particular me and Hossa).

In order to get over this 66 overall mark, we'd have to acquire more than 3 guys with rankings over 75. And in order to do that, I'd have to gut my prospect system/draft picks. And then after doing that, I'd become very very much in debt.

All this on EXTREMELY short notice, like try two days before the pre season starts.

I think this is an idea with good intent, but the timing is incredibly frustrating.

When i was handed this team, i was Told by that it would be a very long and patient process. That i was getting this team because I was a person with vast knowledge for prospects and that I could rebuild this team. Thats what I have been doing. And now, you are telling me to essentially turn around and do the opposite? Strip the team bare again and put it in a bad position like the previous GM had it in?

My overall ranking is a 64 right now, but my defense is at a 67 and my goaltender is a 70 overall. I ask you, is me getting to a level of a 66 for this year, at the expense of my best prospects and top draft picks, really going to make my team that much more competitive? No it's not, not in the least.

Me and Sean (Hossa) have talked about this a lot and we are both equally very very frustrated. We both think that this should be something that is implemented next year, with a free agent crop to evaluate and trades for the rest of the season to explore. Make us meet the 68 overall rating by next season, thats realistic. And then just monitor our trades situation very closely. But this 66 overall by all star break is complete nonsense to be honest.

I had a plan for this team, to continue devloping my young players this year, as well as build for the future and then next year when guys like Adam Mair, Nathan Dempsey, Randy Robitaille, Alexandre Daigle, Fernando Pisani, Garnett Exelby all most definitely seing very good increases in their overalls following this season. Not to mention signing Raffi Torres, Konstantin Koltsov and Brent Burns. I was even going to sign a few significant free agents to try to improve my club even more. But you are forcing me to throw that plan (which is a very good one, and the plan i was asked to make for this franchise) down the sh***er essentially.

maybe the compromise is to benchmark those teams under 66ov and require a certain % increase by the all star break and not neccesarly all the way to 66. this way the league can be assured its goals are being adhered to, but not at the expense of some good planning by some core GM's.

This is the main point GM's need to understand - several GMs would be fired for dismantling the team to the point they are no longer competitive. I understand that several GM's have inherited situations they felt necessary to tear completely down to work from the ground up, but we're working on making this league as realistic as possible, and this new rule will help keep "a competitive" check in place, without relying on the Admin Team to make judgement calls that in the end will simply be deemed subjective.

This new rule is a complete no-brainer, even if the particulars may be tinkered with over time.

The real question that remains is how we faze this in?

The point of all of a sudden having several teams fighting over mid-ranked players - thereby creating a rush and increase in asking price for these guys - is well taken, and it is not the intent of the Admin team to force teams into "bad trades", other than to apply the necessary pressure the owner and market would demand of the GM to provide a competitive team. As Doug has pointed out, we're still trying to create a fair, but firm, timeline to get teams on board.

Obviously this would have been better had we timed the announcement of this rule in advance of the waiver draft. However, GM's need to understand the Waiver draft was the Admin teams' final straw. We were hoping several teams would take advantage of the players available to them to improve their team, and redistribute some of the talent - which is the whole intent of the wiaver draft. In stead, we saw the collective yawn by several GMs who had the prime opportunity to improve their on-ice product, and the vast majority simply passed with the dreams of Ovechkin dancing in their minds (even though last still leads to less than a 50% chance of getting him).

Enough is enough.

I'm all for taking a closer look at the ramifications of the 66OV requirement by the allstar break, but GMs should consider this discussion the proverbial firing across their bow. You've been put on notice by your owner and your fans to ice a credible team, and pronto. So now begins your challenge of keeping your job, while maintaining your prime assets (no one's suggesting you move your prime picks).

In the interim, the Admin team will take a closer look at the ramifications of the 66OV, which is still several months away from now.

Time to tinker with your blueprint to building a winner gentleman - your owner and fans have demanded it, with your head being the price should you fail to deliver.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, and what Doug was saying and Drew started off by saying. It's not that I'm against the idea of forcing teams to become competitive, I completely see the justification. The problem, as I keep saying, is the timing. I mean, i feel like I used the waiver draft to better my team in some ways, getting Malhotra and Slegr. I expected Slegr to have a higher ranking, but that's ok. I didn't stand by though, and let my on-ice product rot. But I probably would have protected a guy like Leschyshyn if I knew I had a minimum team rating that I had to achieve. I exposed him because it made no sense for me to keep him. He's not much better than guys like Martinek, Focht and also Slegr, and makes a lot of money, but could be more valuable to your team than mine.

It's too late to institute this before this year's waiver draft or even free agency, but I think basically putting teams on notice for next season, and strictly enfrocing this rule next year, is a fine idea. But there really is no way to avoid creating an inflated market for average NHLers. I mean, I'm fine at center, defence and goaltending, but I lack the requisite wingers to meet this at the moment.

The other thing I will say, just to reiterate the point, is that while we want this to be as realistic as possible, players can't blossom with ice time here. No matter how much ice time I give a guy like Manny malhotra, he won't improve from the 66 he is this year. Yet, look at what Rico Fata has done with ice time in Pittsburgh. That can not be changed, and I think we need to take this in to consideration.

I think it's a great rule. But, I really think it needs to be implemented at the start of next year rather than at the break this year. The notice is too short, and changing something so important mid stream is a bit harsh to me.

Here is another rule that I thinl should be discussed: If a player has played a certain amount of games in the NHL, then they can't be hidden on the prospect list. For example, next year if Bergeron and Lombardi play, say 60 games, I would be forced to sign them. You shouldn't be able to hide good players and wait until you stockpile a bunch of good players as a team hits the lottery year after year.

Plus, let's face it. A guy like Rick Nash could very well demand to be dealt if Columbus kept him unsigned all this time. It's not realistic for him or Bouwmeester to be prospects and not on an HFNHL roster.

I think it's a great rule. But, I really think it needs to be implemented at the start of next year rather than at the break this year. The notice is too short, and changing something so important mid stream is a bit harsh to me.

Here is another rule that I thinl should be discussed: If a player has played a certain amount of games in the NHL, then they can't be hidden on the prospect list. For example, next year if Bergeron and Lombardi play, say 60 games, I would be forced to sign them. You shouldn't be able to hide good players and wait until you stockpile a bunch of good players as a team hits the lottery year after year.

Plus, let's face it. A guy like Rick Nash could very well demand to be dealt if Columbus kept him unsigned all this time. It's not realistic for him or Bouwmeester to be prospects and not on an HFNHL roster.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of the above, including your rule proposal. Players should not be sheltered from waiver consideration for example, by being kept on the prospects list.

I agree with all of the above, including your rule proposal. Players should not be sheltered from waiver consideration for example, by being kept on the prospects list.

Click to expand...

The way I see it, there are few problems with this sim league compared to NHL. If you notice, the team with the worst record makes money in this league (i.e., Carolina, Bufallo and NYI of two years ago). The only way you can motivate GM is to compensate teams with additional revenues if they make playoffs or achieve certain number of points.

The other thing that I have noticed is that teams stock pile their talent in prospect and showcase the leftover to HFNHL. I think the league should have a 2 year prospect rule just like NHL as this will force teams to sign their prospects and will clean up the league of excess baggage.

The OV rule may work but I think teams in dire financial strain will have a hard time acquiring cheap NHL talent (i.e., Toronto)

Ok, guys I wanna say my .02 cents here. I just got home from the bar probably the last time I will go before my finals so I am bit under the influence but I think my points are valid.

Firstly, although off topic, I will be the first to admit I have not nearly put in the time in the last year as I have in previous seasons. However, admidst numerous runins with Drew I must admit he has done a great job. It would really hurt the league if he were to leave on these terms. After everything you put in to this league Drew leaving because a disagreement is not worth it. I know you, Matt and Douglas are rarely credited for your dedication to the league but it is because of you guys and a few others the league is still alive today. I was a former commish before I know how time consuming it is and I also know how difficult this must be to see the league becoming so top heavy.

However, rather than imposing these strict regulations (which in most cases will be extremely diffcult for teams to implement I propose this idea:

I suggest we create a rule which forces the GM's with low average ratings to do one of the following:

1) Improve their OV rating by 2 points by the end of the season

OR

2) Improve their OV rating by 3 points including re-rates before the next season (excluding UFA signings and losses)

* All GM's would be expected to meet this criteria untill their OV is above 70. If this is not met they will be relieved of their duties by the league.

I think this idea could truly beneft the league. It gives GM's a realistic timetable to improve their clubs. It also promotes improving their clubs and even in some cases re-building without forcing them to sacrifice their youth reserves which would only put us further back.

One may wonder why I would respond to an issue like this when I can benefit greatly from the high pick I hold in 2005 (Tampas) but I think this is necessary for the good of the league. Douglas's idea of waiving players was an attempt to start us off on this path but I believe it is unnessecary. If the GM's can't meet these reasonable expectations then they deserve to be canned. This league has so much going for it (an amazing group of knowledgeable GM's who I enjoy just bull****ting about hockey with plus an admin team that puts in countless hours) it would really be terrible to see a loss in either of these areas because of an ill administered rule.